The Evaluation and Treatment (Tx) of Burkitt Lymphoma (BL) in the Modern Era: Real World (RW) Outcomes and Prognostication across 26 US Cancer Centers (CC)

Abstract

Introduction: Historically, outcomes for BL have improved in adults using dose intensive chemotherapy regimens and early CNS prophylaxis. More recent data using a less intensive regimen, DA-EPOCH, have been reported. We analyzed detailed patient (pt) & disease characteristics and treatment patterns across 26 US CCs over a recent 9 year (yr) period and also determined survival rates & prognostication. Methods: We conducted a large multicenter retrospective study of newly diagnosed (dx) adult BL pts (6/2009 - 6/2018). Dx was established by institutional expert pathology review; all cases were verified for BL based on 2016 WHO criteria (high grade B cell lymphoma, BL like, etc were excluded). Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier with differences assessed by log rank test. Univariate (UVA) associations were derived via Cox model with variables P ≤0.05 entered stepwise into a multivariate (MVA) model. Using significant factors from the MVA, a prognostic survival model was constructed. Results: Among N=557 verified BL cases, clinical features included: median age 47 yrs (17-88 yrs; 24% ≥60 yrs); male 76%; HIV+ 22%; ECOG PS 0/1 76%; B symptoms 51%; elevated LDH 78% (3, 5, & 10x elevation: 44%, 29% & 15%, respectively); hemoglobin <10.5 gm/dL 32%; albumin <3.5 30%; bone marrow (BM) involved 35%; non-BM extranodal (EN) in 80%; >1 EN 43%; and 76% stage 3-4 disease (10% stage 1). Additionally, 16% and 3% of pts had baseline leptomeningeal (CSF or cranial nerve palsy) or parenchymal CNS involvement, respectively (see Zayac A et al. ASH 2019 for details). For MYC partner, 68% had t(8;14), 4% light chain, 5% negative FISH (otherwise classic BL) and 23% + break apart probe. HIV+ pts had several clinical differences: CSF+ 23% vs 12% P=0.003; CNS 19% vs 8% P<0.001; ECOG PS 2-4 32% vs 21% P=0.002; BM 64% vs 34% P=0.03; and >1 EN 60% vs 38% P<0.001. For all pts, 87% had Tx at an academic CC (13% at community CC). Tx regimens were: CODOX-M/IVAC (Magrath) 31%, HyperCVAD/MA 29%, DA-EPOCH 28%, other 10% (mostly CHOP-based & CALGB Tx) & 1% were never treated. 90% of pts received rituximab as part of Tx (69% inpatient (inpt) & 31% outpatient) & 2% had consolidative autologous SCT. Response among all pts were CR 72%, PR 6%, SD 1%, PD 14%, 7% not evaluable. The treatment related mortality (TRM) rate across all pts was 8.9% (HIV+ vs not: 13% vs 8% P=0.09); most common: sepsis 48%, GI bleed/perforation 14% & respiratory failure 12%. TRM by Tx: hyperCVAD/MA 11.5%, EPOCH 6.4%, Magrath 6.3% & other 18.9%. With 39 month median follow-up, 3 year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 65% and 72%, respectively (Fig 1A). Among all pts who experienced disease progression, 90% occurred <12 months from dx (4% after 2 yrs). There were 20 cases (4%) of 2nd cancers seen including 7 secondary MDS/AML (median 26 months) & 6 cases of Hodgkin or other NHL (median 54 months). For prognostication, outcomes were inferior for pts ages ≥40 yrs & LDH >3x normal (Fig 1B/C). Notably, survival rates were not different based on HIV status (Fig 1D) or by the 3 most common Tx regimens (Fig 1E). However, there were important Tx differences based on presence of CNS involvement (see Zayac A et al. ASH 2019). Additionally, use of rituximab was associated with improved PFS & OS (Fig 1F), while outcomes were similar whether rituximab was given inpt vs outpatient (inpt PFS HR 1.25, P=0.19). Furthermore, Tx at an academic CC was associated with improved outcomes, which persisted on MVA (PFS HR 0.54, 95%CI 0.33-0.88 P=0.01; OS HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.87 P=0.01) & achievement of initial CR was strongly prognostic (Fig 1G). Baseline factors significant on UVA for PFS & OS were: age ≥40 yrs; PS 2-4; LDH >3x; anemia, low albumin; BM involvement; Stage 3-4; CSF+; & >1 EN. On MVA, factors associated with inferior survival were: age ≥40 yrs (PFS HR 1.57, P<0.001; OS HR 1.89, P=0.001); PS 2-4 (PFS HR 1.57, P=0.002; OS HR 2.16, P<0.001); & LDH >3x (PFS HR 2.28, P<0.0001; OS HR 1.96, P<0.0001). Collectively, these factors yielded a BL survival model (Fig 1H/I). Conclusions: Outcomes for adult BL in this contemporary, large, multicenter RW analysis appear inferior to smaller published series. Interestingly, despite increased adverse prognostic factors, survival rates appeared similar in HIV+ pts. In addition, use of rituximab, achievement of initial CR, and Tx at an academic CC were associated with improved survival. Finally, a novel BL-specific survival model identified pts with markedly divergent outcomes. Disclosures Evens: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tesaro: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Danilov:Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding. Reddy:KITE Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Khan:Janssen: Other: Educational Content/Symposium; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers: Other: Research Funds; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yazdy:Genentech: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy. Karmali:Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Diefenbach:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Eisai: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Naik:Celgene: Other: Advisory board. Kamdar:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; University of Colorado: Employment; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Portell:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Alderuccio:Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member; OncLive: Consultancy.

Prognostic Stratification of Patients with Burkitt Lymphoma Using Serum β2-microglobulin Levels

“…Subsequently, a recent phase 2 study of risk-adapted DA-EPOCH-R adopted this classification system for patient stratification and allocation to different chemotherapeutic intensities [13]. Although each factor comprising this risk-stratifying criterion was shown to be prognostic in patients with BL [6][7][8][9][10], to our knowledge, the validity of the previously suggested system has not been thoroughly confirmed as a robust prognostic index for BL patients. Since the chemotherapy regimens were not significantly different between the different risk groups based on the previously suggested criteria, no definite difference in our study in the survival outcomes of patient subgroups based on these criteria indicates that they have room for improvement.…”

“…Despite the highly aggressive biological behavior of BL, the patterns of disease involvement and clinical course show substantial heterogeneity [1][2][3][4]. Population-based studies have identified several risk factors for a poor outcome among patients with BL, such as older age, advanced stage, African ancestry, poor performance status (PS), and high levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) [5][6][7][8][9][10]. A recent multicenter study reported age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS, LDH, and central nervous system involvement as independent prognostic factors for the survival outcomes of patients with BL [11].…”

“…Population-based studies have identified several risk factors for a poor outcome among patients with BL, such as older age, advanced stage, African ancestry, poor performance status (PS), and high levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) [5][6][7][8][9][10]. A recent multicenter study reported age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS, LDH, and central nervous system involvement as independent prognostic factors for the survival outcomes of patients with BL [11]. Based on the known prognostic factors, risk-adapted treatment approaches with dose adjustment have been proposed to effectively treat high-risk patients with dose-intensified regimens while minimizing treatment-related toxicities in low-risk patients by reducing the chemotherapeutic dose intensity [12,13].…”

Saudi lymphoma group's clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, management and follow-up of patients with various types of lymphoma during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic

“…High-risk patients could be treated with intensified R-CODox-M/IVAC or R-Hyper-C-VAD/MA, as these regimens are indicated for patients with CNS involvement and associated with a significantly reduced risk of CNS relapse in comparison to DA-R-EPOCH in patients with no CNS involvement at diagnosis. [ 95 96 97 ] For patients treated with DA-R-EPOCH, the second cycle and beyond can be administered in an outpatient ambulatory setting, if hospital resources are available. [ 98 ] On the other hand, for patients with low-risk disease, three cycles of DA-R-EPOCH is adequate treatment and associated with excellent outcome.…”

A Novel Prognostic Index for Sporadic Burkitt Lymphoma in Adult Patients: A Real-Word Multicenter Study

“…However, there is no standardized prognostic model for adult BL. Recently, in a multicenter real-world study in Western countries presented that ages ≥ 40, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥ 2, LDH 3 times more than the upper normal limit and central nervous system (CNS) involvement predicted inferior survival and constructed a BL-IPI in adult BL (13,14). But the prognostic model for adult patients with sporadic BL in Asian patient is still under establishment.…”